❓ Question regarding a deal between the Labor Government and the Greens (WA) to bring forward the construction of a train station at South Perth in exchange for support on the southern rail link legislation. The Premier's answer deflects and accuses the opposition of obstruction.
AnsweredQoN 292Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the last minute deal struck between the Labor Government and the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council yesterday when the Government agreed to bring forward the construction of a train station at South Perth to avoid the southern rail link legislation being referred to a committee for in-depth scrutiny and ask - (1) Given that on 19 September the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure argued in this House against the need to build a station for South Perth - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The member for Peel should wait for the quote, which is - . . . when we considered the cost of developing the station and the level of public transport that the people of South Perth already enjoy, it simply could not be justified. What has changed the Government’s mind in the intervening seven weeks? Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
(1) Given that on 19 September the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure argued in this House against the need to build a station for South Perth - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The member for Peel should wait for the quote, which is - . . . when we considered the cost of developing the station and the level of public transport that the people of South Perth already enjoy, it simply could not be justified. What has changed the Government’s mind in the intervening seven weeks? Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The member for Peel should wait for the quote, which is - . . . when we considered the cost of developing the station and the level of public transport that the people of South Perth already enjoy, it simply could not be justified. What has changed the Government’s mind in the intervening seven weeks? Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The member for Peel should wait for the quote, which is - . . . when we considered the cost of developing the station and the level of public transport that the people of South Perth already enjoy, it simply could not be justified. What has changed the Government’s mind in the intervening seven weeks? Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
(2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
(1) Given that on 19 September the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure argued in this House against the need to build a station for South Perth - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The member for Peel should wait for the quote, which is - . . . when we considered the cost of developing the station and the level of public transport that the people of South Perth already enjoy, it simply could not be justified. What has changed the Government’s mind in the intervening seven weeks? Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The member for Peel should wait for the quote, which is - . . . when we considered the cost of developing the station and the level of public transport that the people of South Perth already enjoy, it simply could not be justified. What has changed the Government’s mind in the intervening seven weeks? Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The member for Peel should wait for the quote, which is - . . . when we considered the cost of developing the station and the level of public transport that the people of South Perth already enjoy, it simply could not be justified. What has changed the Government’s mind in the intervening seven weeks? Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
The SPEAKER: Member for Peel, a question is being asked; this is not a debate. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I will continue with my question - (2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
(2) Is this proof that the Premier is prepared to spend $10 million on the cost of a station at South Perth to avoid the proper scrutiny of the Parliament? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
I must consult my new dictionary called the “Liberal Party Dictionary” to see the meaning of the words “in-depth scrutiny”. What do I see? I see “obstruction”, “delay”, “hindrance”. That is what members opposite mean by in-depth scrutiny. Members opposite do not want the southern railway. Their view was exposed for all to see in the Parliament only two nights ago when Hon Peter Foss let the cat out of the bag. He said, “We don’t need the railway to Mandurah.” By interjection in this Parliament, the member for Warren-Blackwood said, “We don’t need it for at least 10 years.” We know where members opposite are coming from. In case it has not been obvious to the member, the Australian Labor Party does not have the numbers in the Legislative Council. Therefore, from time to time some of the other parties in that House indicate that they want something in exchange for their support on an issue. That is called politics. Is that not strange? Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a good interjection from the member for Perth. I am sure the member for Stirling will agree that the National Party has been practising that style of politics for a long time. Good luck to them. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has never ruled out a railway station for South Perth. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: When did she rule it out? Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Go back and read the debate. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I heard the minister in the debate. Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Read the quote in the question. Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: She has never ruled it out. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes she has. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have agreed that, in consultation with the community, we should come up with a plan by 2010 for a railway station in that area to service the people of South Perth. What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
What does this question tell us? Firstly, it tells us again that members opposite do not want the railway line. We will tell that to the people who live in Mandurah and Rockingham. Secondly, members opposite consistently misrepresent the minister’s position. I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
I return to my central point in an earlier answer. Members opposite are doom and gloom merchants. They do not have a positive view of the State and they do not believe in public transport. They are sitting over there like shags on the conservative rock they occupy and they do not understand the changes that are occurring in our community. While they sit on that rock basking in the glory of past days, we will get on with the job of governing Western Australia.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.